Talk:Saudi Vision 2030

Untitled

Can Any Body Add the Logo of Saudi Arabia Vision 2030 in the Article.

Here is the logo

Here is a link to the main website: http://vision2030.gov.sa/en

The logo is there in the top left corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phellmon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Current version needs work

The current version has a few shortcomings which I hope can be remedied. These are principally:

• ‘Description’ is an unusual title for the opening section, which could include more information such as more detail on the key objectives within each theme and the main targets associated with those objectives
• The Projects section is confused, with ‘Women’s rights’ included as a project along with some of the major development projects
• The Implementation section could be better presented
• There are no images
• The Critical reactions section contains quite a lot which doesn’t seem very critical
• Key aspects are missing such as as:
  • The role of the Public Investment Fund
  • The role of international partners
  • A fuller outline of the most important VRPs, e.g. finance, privatization and fiscal balance

A possible new structure could be:

1. Background - expanding on the first paragraph of the Description section
2. Objectives - expanding on the rest of the Description section, with a fuller outline of the three themes and objectives, as well as targets
3. Development projects - giving a brief outline of the major projects
4. Social and cultural developments - giving a brief overview of the social and cultural aspects of Vision 2030 e.g. religious reform, women’s rights, entertainment, sports, tourism, Hajj and Umrah
5. Implementation - building on the existing section and including short sections on the most important VRPs, e.g. Financial Sector Development Program, Privatization Program, Fiscal Balance Program, Housing Program; as well as outlining the phasing
6. Role of the Public Investment Fund
7. International partnerships - e.g. SoftBank, Blackstone, AMC
8. Reactions - possibly divided into subsections

Any input to this would be welcome. As COI editor (see my userpage) I wouldn’t embark on any major redrafting until I’ve been able to agree a way forward with other editors. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request – proposed rewrite

As I mentioned in the post above, the current version has some issues. I have drawn up this user draft as a proposed rewrite.

The structure is similar to the one outlined above:

1. The Description section is replaced by Background and aims, with a Targets subsection.
2. Instead of the Projects section in the current version – which is too broad as it includes both women's rights and the National Transformation Program (an economic plan) alongside physical projects – this draft has a Development projects section and a Social and cultural developments section. The draft also leaves out the table under the Other projects subheading, which groups together projects which are completely different in size and aims (e.g. Neom and New Taif). Smaller city projects are instead covered briefly in the final paragraph of Development projects.
3. A Capital markets and privatization section is included – this is an important area of reform.
4. A redrafted Implementation section leaves out the table in the current version, which has blank cells in it and doesn't give the average reader much value, and includes the National Transformation Program, Vision Realization Programs, and the role of the Public Investment Fund.
5. An International involvement section covers support from the IMF and partnerships with countries and multinationals.
6. A redrafted Critical reactions section covers a fuller range of the most widely reported concerns.

Some specific points on the current version:

• Richard Branson was never running the Red Sea project – the directorships were advisory roles. His withdrawal from those roles and suspension of talks on Virgin space projects (in the Red Sea luxury resort project section in the current version) are therefore mentioned in the International involvement section in the user draft.
• The second paragraph of the Projects section in the current version, on the Future Investment Initiative, is off-topic in my view as the Future Investment Initiative is a PIF venture not a Vision 2030 venture. However some of the withdrawals from the 2018 conference are of course relevant insofar as they pertain to partnerships with multinationals – the withdrawals of Richard Branson, Stephen Schwarzman, Larry Fink, JPMorgan and HSBC are therefore mentioned in the International involvement and Critical reactions sections of the user draft.
• The first paragraph of the current Critical reactions section, on the IMF, is not critical apart from the now out-of-date warning on foreign reserves. The IMF is therefore not mentioned in the Critical reactions section of the user draft, and is instead included as a subsection of the International involvement section.

I realize there's a lot to look at here and that editors will need to go over it in detail. I hope however that it will be recognized that these proposals are an improvement on the current version and that a discussion can proceed from that starting point. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 23-DEC-2018

• Please note: a diff of all the requested changes is here. I apologize if any of my remarks seem blunt; I assure the COI editor that they are made with the greatest sincerity with respect to the COI editor's time and patience.

1. In essence, the COI editor is asking that the whole of the current article be deleted, and another article, the proposed version, be approved as a new article. These two processes when combined would not be possible in any other circumstance for simple request in Wikipedia (i.e., an WP:AFD followed by an WP:AFC in one swift stroke).
2. That being said, the length and degree of changes here are so complex, that it is my opinion that if the COI editor wishes these changes to be made entirely in one single edit, a specialist from one of the WikiProjects which governs the page ought to be brought in to effect this change, or else they should proceed to an WP:RFC or any other number of processes which are available to them. I have told this COI editor in the past that other avenues are to be preferred when requests become complex, but seeing them back here again obviously means they don't agree.
3. The {{request edit}} process is ideally for circumstances where actionable edit requests are to be carried out by a single reviewer, not a team of empaneled experts, which would be necessary for these changes to be made. Other COI editors wait on this queue for days, even months for requests equivalent to one-quarter the size this COI editor is asking for. In a volunteer project such as this there's no reason why they should expect any different, and failing to make these requests for changes in smaller increments shows the COI editor is not cognizant of how this process generally works the best.
4. The requested changes would delete large swaths of the current article, which I would argue might not be such a bad idea. The fact that much in the current article (as well as in the current proposal) concerns information that is ultimately speculation about the WP:FUTURE, means that there is much in both versions which is not approvable.
5. I will leave this one open for the next 24 hours to garner feedback, but honestly I see this headed towards a {{request edit|D|D}} response. In that circumstance I would urge the COI editor to make these requests in smaller increments in the future.

Regards,  Spintendo  16:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

@Spintendo: thanks for replying and I apologize if this was not the best use of the edit request. I may be wrong but I think there's been some misunderstanding however at least in regard to the chronology of my attempts to discuss this article, as this is actually my fourth try – the first being my initial talk page post above (September 26), the second being this post at WP:KSA (October 2, six weeks before our discussion at Talk:Saudi Arabia about a possible Vision 2030 section), and the third being this thread on your talk page (December 3), which I think you mistook for a continuation of the Saudi Arabia discussion as I didn’t make it clear enough that I was talking about this article and referring to my October 2 WP:KSA post (which was 2 months old by then). My concern is that this misunderstanding and this edit request have led you to conclude that I've chosen to ignore your advice at Talk:Saudi Arabia, which I assure you I haven't (I've since posted on the WikiProjects for that article as we discussed). Hope we can clear that up. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies then, I think you're right in that I did confuse the various requests as one. With respect to the current iteration of these requests, I still believe that it would do best to have the input of editors at whichever WikiProject you were successful in finding editors at (I know that there were some which I mentioned which turned out to have a vacancy of editors). This is still preferred, or else if the current request could be broken up into smaller, more manageable pieces to assist in expediting their review, it would be much appreciated. Let me know, thanks!

Regards,  Spintendo  23:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

New Saudia Arab National Airlines named as Saud International Airline 3 letter code SiA

New Saudia Arab National Airlines named as Saud International Airline 3 letter code SIA. 5.107.9.245 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Lede sounds alarmist?

Saudi Vision 2030 is a strategic framework to reduce Saudi Arabia's dependence on oil, diversify its economy, and develop public service sectors such as health, education, infrastructure, recreation, and tourism.

Saudi Arabi isn't going to explode if their oil market recesses and the country certainly has public sectors such as education and health care etc. I think that the intro is unnecessarily negative and should be rewritten from a more neutral standpoint. 111.220.175.144 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Other Projects" table

It would be helpful if, in the "Other Projects" table, there could be a column with SHORT descriptions of the projects. Also, I see that the expected completion date for "Great Mosque of Mecca", which I assume is referring to the big expansion that's been going on for a handful of years, is "mid-2018". Seeing as 2018 was five years ago (already! Wow!), that should be updated or clarified. Is the project complete? Behind schedule? What's going on there? It being Mecca, I can't really find a whole lot on it myself.

Thanks,

AAEexecutive (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Michael Stephens

I've edited as per WP:BRD at the criticism section to the effect of removing the paragraph which quotes Michael Stephens. This is because it cites a 2020 New York Times article which in turn quotes Stephens saying that in view of developments at that time he felt the Neom project "is over". We now know it clearly wasn't over and Stephens' judgement has no other obvious merit for inclusion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)